DrewCurtisJr:MelGoesOnTour: Those of you folks who don't care to hear about anecdotal stories about how WM has badly treated local economies, well, those stories nonetheless represent REAL situations for REAL people. I won't go into detail but I've seen first-hand how local mom-n-pop stores in small towns have been eradicated by the arrival of a WM. And it's not like the people who live in small towns have a choice when it comes to what they are forced to deal with. WM takes advantage of small economies to the detriment of those local populations and that's a fact.

I care about anecdotal stories, but please answer me this, why are these small town folk so willing to shop their neighbors and sometimes themselves out of jobs if Walmart is so bad for the area? Just because a Walmart opens doesn't mean people are forced to shop there instead of Johnson's Grocery and Henderson's Butcher Shop.

I think it is the fact that the poorest people are most likely to go for the lowest prices even if it can be against their own self interest in the bigger picture. Upper income people can afford to shop with a "conscience".

I'll answer your questions: The folks in local [read: poor] economies are compelled to do what they have to do in order to survive. The local butcher shop, which used to serve people needs and didn't make much of a profit to begin with, survived by meeting the needs of the local economy. WM moves in and by economy of scale can offer lower prices and of course folks will migrate there to save money. That makes sense, in a way, and I don't argue about that. But in the meantime the local small business community is ruined. All of a sudden, the town becomes beholden to the company store. Is this REALLY a good thing?

DrewCurtisJr:If she has a family she's probably not paying anything in taxes at that income.

In the end, no, but they'll still be deducted from her paycheck. Admittedly, I made an assumption there, and that assumption was that her quoted figure for annual pay is whatever her weekly net earnings are multiplied by 52. For some reason, most people tend to regard a tax refund as some sort of bonus instead of actual income.

"An NFI spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment but the firm has said previously that it adheres to all legal labour standards."

What bugs me is companies that say this, but obviously rephrase or use other "legal" reasons to strike back... and the other, is some companies are actively trying to eliminate or roll back those protections, then what?

Glad I didn't know it was my last deep fried twinkie(s) dunked in Jack infused Whipped cream. Whip it good!Or this one time, we stuffed twinkies in glazed donuts, deep fry, slice on the bias, Hard Sauce.

This is gonna lay off some cardio surgeons, btw.Oreos are doing well, it seems.

Virulency:"An NFI spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment but the firm has said previously that it adheres to all legal labour standards."

What bugs me is companies that say this, but obviously rephrase or use other "legal" reasons to strike back... and the other, is some companies are actively trying to eliminate or roll back those protections, then what?

In other words, if it's NOT ILLEGAL, they'll do it, no matter how amoral or how it screws people.Then along the way, they'll slip in the illegal stuff when nobody's looking, just for fun.

I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.

Spirit Hammer:WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

I'm not following.Do you think companies hire people to give them jobs?(THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE)Or do they identify tasks/jobs to be performed, decide what that work is worth to the company, and offer the jobs to anyone who agrees with the pay?

freewill:Wrencher: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Sure, you go on believing that...BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.There is just no way they could have given their employees a penny more.....Why are their so many gullible idiots in this world?

In fairness, as true as this might be, those outrageous executive salaries are generally a drop in the bucket compared to the company's total numbers. This seems like one of those cases.

"a few executives got outrageous salaries they clearly did not deserve given the company's situation" != "the company could have afforded to pay 8,000 employees much more"

Hostess was making products people weren't buying. Sales were down and had been suffering for thirty years, the trend is away from crap processed junk food, and that market that is increasingly catering to consumers who don't have much money to spend. Executives sucking the last breath out of the dying company for themselves is reprehensible, but it was still the company's dying breath.

The union was misguided, too, though I wouldn't say they killed it. It's just unsurprising that a company that made a product people didn't really want wasn't going to keep paying solid wages.

chiett:No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

so employees have no power and should be thankful for being treated like crap?

Spirit Hammer:Or do they identify tasks/jobs to be performed, decide what that work is worth to the company, and offer the jobs to anyone who agrees with the pay?

Here's the thing, if you don't take care of your employees well enough you're going to increase various costs for lots of people who have had no say in how you do things. Also you're not doing the economy any favors, which just hurts you in the long term.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.

No. Finish the post. Kids don't really need healthcare coverage because when you live with your parents it's already covered.

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.

The answer is, it depends IMHO. It's complex and Walmart, like most things, isn't all bad. Some small towns, rural areas, can't really support local businesses and the prices and selection at the stores on Main St. are very limiting. Walmarts are a regional destination and can provide a level of price and selection that just can't be matched by the locally owned mom & pops.

On the otheside Walmart has been notorious for insisting on offshoring production, fighting against workers organizing, and cutthroat effeciency (aka reducing headcount).

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.

No. Finish the post. Kids don't really need healthcare coverage because when you live with your parents it's already covered.

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money partying, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close clothing that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.

clowncar on fire:Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. B

minimum wage jobs used to pay a lot better as measured by what percentage of the median income you could make working full time at minimum wage. Currently they pay the worst they have ever paid. To put them back on the level they were in the late 40s you'd have to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr.

Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Fail in Human Form:Great Janitor:Today I am in a position where I don't have to work at a minimum wage job. My last job interview had the boss explaining to me how in one week I could earn $5,000 commission with residuals for life selling to one person. There is no reason why these Walmart employees who are complaining about low hours each week can't be spending their down time bettering themselves with added skil ...

Everyone isn't as awesome as you are.

And you can do it from the comfort of your home for only 2 hours a day!

Because if you continued to collect unemployment, you were in violation of unemployment regulations and lied on your weekly statement by turning down work.

Nope. Most states have a provision that you do not have to accept work if they offer pay which is significantly lower than the pay of your last job and/or lower than what you make on unemployment. Otherwise you'd have employers specifically checking to see if applicants were on unemployment, just so they could say things like, "oh yes, we'd love to hire you, but that 75k/year we promised? Actually we've decided for you it would be $14k/year. Take or leave it."

Bippal:Not everyone lives somewhere that they have a lot of choices. There aren't a lot of options around here. Not for jobs, not for shopping.

How does that give people a right to biatch about what they're being paid? If not for having a Walmart in the area, they'd be bringing in 0 dollars an hour and likely paying more for the crap they buy.

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: There is no reason why these Walmart employees who are complaining about low hours each week can't be spending their down time bettering themselves with added skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?

Because employers are so impressed when you respond to questions about your education with "I just go to the library. Same thing."

Most robber barons didn't have company towns. And using violence to fight strikers was also not that common, indeed when it did happen it caused just a dust up that those running the companies found themselves in worse shape with the public.

Those were examples of the type of things you'd expect with robber barons. The fact is that they aren't happening. While I'm sure some CEOs out there would love for them to exist, the simply fact is that they cannot. Not in this day and age. Decry Walmart all you want - personally, I refuse to shop there, unless I run into a situation where I've got no choice. Since I've been successful in only shopping there twice in about 15 years, I'm feeling pretty good about my efforts.

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: There is no reason why these Walmart employees who are complaining about low hours each week can't be spending their down time bettering themselves with added skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?

Because employers are so impressed when you respond to questions about your education with "I just go to the library. Same thing."

red5ish:Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit.

Low prices are the main reason for Walmart's success, it is fine to blame Walmart for working conditions but if Walmart decides to pay workers more and some other retailer comes along and undercuts it in prices and wages where do you think people are going to shop?

swaxhog:Fail in Human Form: Great Janitor:Today I am in a position where I don't have to work at a minimum wage job. My last job interview had the boss explaining to me how in one week I could earn $5,000 commission with residuals for life selling to one person. There is no reason why these Walmart employees who are complaining about low hours each week can't be spending their down time bettering themselves with added skil ...

Everyone isn't as awesome as you are.

And you can do it from the comfort of your home for only 2 hours a day!

I wonder what a poultice composed of nothing but herbalife and amway supplements would do when applied to the shaft?

Here's what Hormel did during the depression. First thing they did when they saw the economy was going into the shiatter was to institute a 52 week lay off notice policy. No one could be laid off without being given 52 weeks notice first. So even with demand cratering they were keeping people on the payroll. At some of their facilities there were times when people showed up and basically spent their shifts talking, there wasn't enough demand for Hormel products to give them much to do. But that wasn't all, Hormel decided to also update and expand their facilities. Easy to update a facility when it's sitting almost idle. And sure things are bad today, doesn't mean they'll stay this way and may as well be well prepared for the future. So Hormel spent a ton on improving existing facilities and building new ones, new ones it had no demand for. Eventually the depression ended and things started getting better and better. Then WW2 came around and Hormel could produce food on a scale that allowed them to get tons of government contracts and then came the baby boom and Hormel was able to meet that demand easily. Oh yeah, the number of people they laid off during the depression? Zero.

DrewCurtisJr:it is fine to blame Walmart for working conditions but if Walmart decides to pay workers more and some other retailer comes along and undercuts it in prices and wages where do you think people are going to shop?

Interestingly Costco spends more on labor than Sam's Club does, yet their prices aren't noticablly different. And, at least this was the case a few years ago, per square foot of retail space Costco was more profitable than Sam's Club. Also suppliers find Costco far less a pain the ass to deal with than Walmart.

Here's what Hormel did during the depression. First thing they did when they saw the economy was going into the shiatter was to institute a 52 week lay off notice policy. No one could be laid off without being given 52 weeks notice first. So even with demand cratering they were keeping people on the payroll. At some of their facilities there were times when people showed up and basically spent their shifts talking, there wasn't enough demand for Hormel products to give them much to do. But that wasn't all, Hormel decided to also update and expand their facilities. Easy to update a facility when it's sitting almost idle. And sure things are bad today, doesn't mean they'll stay this way and may as well be well prepared for the future. So Hormel spent a ton on improving existing facilities and building new ones, new ones it had no demand for. Eventually the depression ended and things started getting better and better. Then WW2 came around and Hormel could produce food on a scale that allowed them to get tons of government contracts and then came the baby boom and Hormel was able to meet that demand easily. Oh yeah, the number of people they laid off during the depression? Zero.